Next Patch Wishes

[2010sjones2010]

A request from the early days which was to have a graphic on the playing screen and more importantly a graphic on the page at the start of each new DLC showing the list of imported cores informing/reminding the player which commander they are playing as/played as please

[Shrike]

Etc.

011101000110100001111000001000000110011001101111011100100010000001100011011011000110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001110010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000111010101110000

Why not just write "thx for clearing that up" for us non-machine beings

[Kerensky]

2. A shortcut for the switch command

Any specific suggestions what key to use for this?

How about 'T' like transform.

[4kEY]

011101000110100001111000001000000110011001101111011100100010000001100011011011000110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001110010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000111010101110000

You...have..a dead cat in your pants?

[4kEY]

Next Patch Wishes:

1. New icon for 10.5cm leFH 18

2. Maps for Grand Campaign scenarios...like the ones for indivdual scenarios from the base campaign. Maybe have them during the briefing, somehow, and make them accessible in the library as we progress. Large scale, perhaps, showing the player where they are in the vast expanses of Russia. This would be helpful and educational for some players. It doesn't necessarily have to instruct the player where to go during a scenario, but it could probably show the axis and allied fronts at that particular point in the war. Someone mentioned instant replay...maybe this could be done on a broad-scale map, showing the movement of the player's forces after the scenario is done (or in real time, if possible). Lines, blocks, and arrows? Or little white circles like Chris10 has done. Another reason this might be cool is because I've heard complaints about "losing" the war despite winning the battle, as it were. This could show the events in other areas where the player is not, and maybe help them understand why they are still forced to retreat desptite getting a DV - I'm sure there's a clever way to do this.

[Beakie]

Next Patch Wishes:

How about a button in the options for the Reform Units cheat? so we don't have to remember to turn it on all all the time....

[robman]

Pop-up select transport option (like current rail/naval) when multiple air transport options are available at an airfield.

[OldGiants]

You may not agree with retreat mechanics, but it is by no means random. The unit always tries to retreat directly away from the attacking enemy. If that hex is occupied, then the unit tries to use any of the two hexes next to it, and if those are taken too, as a last resort it tries to use any of the remaining hexes. In other words, the unit attempts to move as far away from attacking enemy as possible. This is not devoid of logic, and has some useful implications for gameplay too. It is easy enough to predict where a unit will retreat when attacked, and many players use this knowledge for their advantage (e. g. force a tank to retreat to close terrain, and then attack it with infantry there). If a unit would always retreat to the safest hex, the usefullness of this mechanics in game tactics would be more limited.

Would that this were true. It is not. Many is the time my own unit has a clear hex to retreat back into and instead retreats forward next to an enemy unit.

What you describe simply is not true. I know this from my experience in playing this game.

Why do you insist that units first look to retreat to safety when the evidence of actual game play is otherwise?

[bebro]

2. A shortcut for the switch command

Any specific suggestions what key to use for this?

First thought was tab or backspace, but they are used already...

What about:

- Alt+S
- W for sWitch
- or maybe "arrow up/down"?

Maybe someone has a better suggestion...

edit: or what Kerensky said ("T")

[deducter]

You may not agree with retreat mechanics, but it is by no means random. The unit always tries to retreat directly away from the attacking enemy. If that hex is occupied, then the unit tries to use any of the two hexes next to it, and if those are taken too, as a last resort it tries to use any of the remaining hexes. In other words, the unit attempts to move as far away from attacking enemy as possible. This is not devoid of logic, and has some useful implications for gameplay too. It is easy enough to predict where a unit will retreat when attacked, and many players use this knowledge for their advantage (e. g. force a tank to retreat to close terrain, and then attack it with infantry there). If a unit would always retreat to the safest hex, the usefullness of this mechanics in game tactics would be more limited.

Would that this were true. It is not. Many is the time my own unit has a clear hex to retreat back into and instead retreats forward next to an enemy unit.

What you describe simply is not true. I know this from my experience in playing this game.

Why do you insist that units first look to retreat to safety when the evidence of actual game play is otherwise?

Show us these many examples of yours where the retreat path does not work correctly.

[Razz1]

ahh.. What you are missing is another statement that says: The unit will try to retreat in the direction it came from first.

So using this logic please keep an yey on your games.

You will see retreat works very well. However I am still mystified by the fact that using the know fact above it still appears that units can advance when retreating.

This may be due to the sequence in which the AI calculates which hex to use first.

For example: Your infantry moves from left to right. Unit gets attacked and is forced to retreat. Your unit can not go back into the hex you previously came from as another unit is occupying it.

Now the AI uses the first hex to the West to see if it is available. It is and retreats into that hex. For us, the unit has advanced when in fact there is another hex it could have moved backward to the East.


The AI could have chosen a Hex to the North or South first to calculate a retreat but it does not.

Hence the sequence is incorrect.

It should calulate the hex you came from first, then any hex that touches the hex you came from. That would ensure the unit goes backwards.

Retreat also uses the direction the attacker came from.
It also plays a part as the AI tries to push the unit in that direction.

I do not know which sequence it uses first. The direction the attacker came from or the direction the defender came from.

Here is another example: You unit moves East from left to right. All hexes surrounding your unit are open. The AI moves from the South. and attacks.

Since you moved from the West you would think the at the AI would push you back into the hex you came from, but it does not. The hex is open. So why can you not retreat into the hex you came from?

It appears it also uses Zone of influence for the attacker to block retreat direction. So now the AI does a another calculation for retreat direction.

Most of the time your unit will retreat to the North because the AI came from that direction. However, sometimes it retreats to the North East, which is an advance. So again, in place of picking an adjacent hex in which you came from the AI chooses another hex.

I believe the AI tries the hex you came from and if it fails, it randomly chooses another hex and then proceeds in the direction of a clock.

I would look at your games again to see if you will confirm my statements above.

The script that programs a retreat should be looked at again to improve it.

[hs1611]

@OldGiants and
@ Razz1

Check this post by deducter:

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=38631

[Rudankort]

Why do you insist that units first look to retreat to safety when the evidence of actual game play is otherwise?

What I posted above is how I designed and implemented retreat mechanics. If there are some cases where the rules do not work, please by all means let me know about them. These are bugs which need to be fixed.

Note that sometimes it is not immediately obvious on the first glance that a unit cannot go to a certain hex. For example, a unit cannot go where its transport cannot go, so it will not retreat to such hex.

[WarRaupe]

Hi!

I think, the hard-attack of the Jagdtiger (JT) should be increased.
Currently, the the hard-attack of the JT is just 21. But the hard-attack of the Tiger 2 is 24.

The JT has a 128mm gun, where the Tiger 2 has "only" a long 88mm gun. Even a longer gun means higher velocity of the projectile, it doesnt make sense, the give a JT a 128mm gun when its inferior to the 88mm L/71.

Best regards,
WarRaupe

[fsx]

Alex, could you add the traits for the unit type in the buy unit screen on the right, at the unit detail screen between statistics (kills..) and the bigunit-picture, in the F7 list below the last information. Its enough space left on this positions.
If I buy an infantery, I would like to now, its a fortkiller, meng (ignore entrench level, ...). Icons or words - I dont know what fits better.

2nd: At the first unit detail window, let us switch the unit. If I would check the range of an enemy AA-unit, but its in AT mode....

3th: If I have enough prestige, I would like to give elite-replacements for all my cores (one key to upgrade them all to 10, again: all units reach 11 if they have enough exp...).

[Rudankort]

I think, the hard-attack of the Jagdtiger (JT) should be increased.
Currently, the the hard-attack of the JT is just 21. But the hard-attack of the Tiger 2 is 24.

The JT has a 128mm gun, where the Tiger 2 has "only" a long 88mm gun. Even a longer gun means higher velocity of the projectile, it doesnt make sense, the give a JT a 128mm gun when its inferior to the 88mm L/71.

Our hard attack ratings were derived from penetration data, and afair these stats were lower for JT than for Tiger II. This was our excuse for making JT's hard attack lower, because this also makes sense from gameplay perspective. JagdTiger is already an extremely powerful roadblock, given its thick armor, and it is a decent attacker too. Also note that in PzC JT has very high initiative ratings, showing that it could effectively hit targets from very long distances. We did not want to make another uber unit out of it.

[Rudankort]

Alex, could you add the traits for the unit type in the buy unit screen on the right, at the unit detail screen between statistics (kills..) and the bigunit-picture, in the F7 list below the last information. Its enough space left on this positions.

Can you make a mockup showing where you suggest to add this?

[fsx]

Here my suggested positions. Marked in red (please scroll!)

[fsx]

pos2.jpg (34.38 KiB) Viewed 2956 times

pos1.jpg (38.13 KiB) Viewed 2956 times

[robman]

I second fsx's suggestion. All information about a unit available in the equipment file should be easily accessible through the regular interface, both in the purchase screen and in gameplay. Most of it is, but switching, rate of fire, special traits, and transport options are not.